RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world.

RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/16/2009 9:07:59 PM)
You are wrong in a number of instances, not about the law, just wrong in your thinking. perhaps when you get all refreshed we can discuss.

Kirata -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/16/2009 9:43:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I do not object to the practice of religion in churches and homes but I do object to it in Civic activities....the so-called public square. I have not understood references to the "public square" as intending civil procedures like the sitting of a legislature, which may point to a confusion of terms. But your reliance on Jefferson remains largely misplaced. It is true that he had little respect for the dogmas and doctrines and superstitious nonsense of organized religion. But the preamble of the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, as first proposed by Jefferson and Madison, began, "Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free." The view of man that informs our Declaration and Constitution is that our rights are inherent and involate, i.e., "God given," not created by or dependent upon government. Understood in this context, religion per se is irrelevant and (along with government) more likely to endanger than defend them. K.

vincentML -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/17/2009 8:15:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I do not object to the practice of religion in churches and homes but I do object to it in Civic activities....the so-called public square. I have not understood references to the "public square" as intending civil procedures like the sitting of a legislature, which may point to a confusion of terms. But your reliance on Jefferson remains largely misplaced. It is true that he had little respect for the dogmas and doctrines and superstitious nonsense of organized religion. But the preamble of the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, as first proposed by Jefferson and Madison, began, "Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free." The view of man that informs our Declaration and Constitution is that our rights are inherent and involate, i.e., "God given," not created by or dependent upon government. Understood in this context, religion per se is irrelevant and (along with government) more likely to endanger than defend them. K. Unless I misread you, I think we can agree then that both types of organizartions - religious and civil - can be hazardous to individual human freedom, although probably performing necessary or desired functions each in its own separate sphere. I would not place too much value on Jefferson's invocation of a Deist Creator who long ago left the scene of his "creation" (an entirely different topic) being aware that Jefferson was friend and protector of the radical Thomas Paine who railed against kings and popes. It is my sense, and I will be interested in a good counter, that Jefferson was intent foremost upon legitimizing the Rights of Man by any means even if he had to appeal to some "creator" as was the custom of the time and a direct lineage from The Right of Kings that preceded and still infested his times. I read the sentence you provided and interpret it with heavy emphasis on the latter portion: the mind free. One can only wonder what Jefferson might have written armed with knowledge of Charles Darwin. Lacking such, he was limited to appeal to the concept of a "Creator" modified in the Deist sense. My speculation only, of course. Jefferson was a great fan of the French Revolution and quite a refined radical himself, until the Revolution became so bloody and merciless. Have a good day. Vincent

vincentML -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/17/2009 8:19:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl You are wrong in a number of instances, not about the law, just wrong in your thinking. perhaps when you get all refreshed we can discuss. What is it about my thinking that troubles you? I will nap now and then and try to stay refreshed, i promise, especially to receive your point of view. [:D] vincent

Aneirin -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/17/2009 8:19:28 AM)
If there was no belief in god, it would be something else, as those that seek power will latch onto anything that fits or can be bent to fit to justify their interests and enable their will. The belief in something enables action beyond logical sense.

tazzygirl -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/17/2009 10:41:02 AM)
Namely, your idea that religion should be practiced in private. Wasnt that part of the issue in England, that many were forced to practice their religion in secrecy for fear of retribution from the King and kind? Talk like that puts one belief above another... it used to be one religion, whatever that religion happens to be. Now its atheism above religion. If you dont wish to practice a faith, then by all means dont. But you do not have the right to deny anyone else their given freedom to practice theirs. And that brings me to my second point. It is very true that no religion may be above the law of the land, while no law may ban a lawful religion. To me, that is the seperation of both. I have no issues with this. If a religion is practicing elements that would be unlawful, then those practicing should be held accountable. Cannabilism, rape, slavery, sacrifices, ect... the list could go on for pages. Our society, and our laws, do not allow these things. Religion must practice within that soceity, at least in the US. Having said all that, i dont believe anyone is arguing these points. They seem self explanatory to me. What i do take offence at is the notion that any single group, be it christianity, atheism, hunduism, ect.. can be so high and full of themselves that they believe no one should practice their religion in the open. quote: Case Law and precedent has placed limitation on the exercise of religion, most famously prayer in the public school and creches (sp?) on the City Hall lawn and religious displays in schools, etc. So, I do not object to the practice of religion in churches and homes but I do object to it in Civic activities....the so-called public square. And I believe the Courts have pretty much upheld that point of view. As far as the nativity scenes, ect, those case laws were not against the religion, they were against the notion that only ONE religion could display while denying others the same right. Many places now allow many religions to display. Prayer was the same thing. Since only one prayer was allowed, it was unconstitutional. Forcing children to pray, again, unconstitutional. Which is why silent moments are allowed, so that anyone of any faith may pray or devote their time, even atheists, to their own beliefs. Which is why bible clubs have formed at schools, since other groups with people of similar interests can meet, schools cannot ban religions from doing the same thing. Public schools even must allow the devote time to attend to their religious faith. Muslims have changed that rule in schools. In this, with your belief that religion must be within the home or private sector, i can see your biggotry against religious people. And thats truly sad. People can do bad things in the name of religion. Dont confuse that with religious people. There is a difference.

vincentML -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/17/2009 12:18:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl As far as the nativity scenes, ect, those case laws were not against the religion, they were against the notion that only ONE religion could display while denying others the same right. Many places now allow many religions to display. Prayer was the same thing. Since only one prayer was allowed, it was unconstitutional. Forcing children to pray, again, unconstitutional. Which is why silent moments are allowed, so that anyone of any faith may pray or devote their time, even atheists, to their own beliefs. Which is why bible clubs have formed at schools, since other groups with people of similar interests can meet, schools cannot ban religions from doing the same thing. Public schools even must allow the devote time to attend to their religious faith. Muslims have changed that rule in schools. In this, with your belief that religion must be within the home or private sector, i can see your biggotry against religious people. And thats truly sad. People can do bad things in the name of religion. Dont confuse that with religious people. There is a difference. tazzygirl, i know this is an emotionally charged topic for some people but please let's not stoop to name calling. It places a chill on our discussion. i am not bigoted against believers. i am amused perhaps at the recent attitude of martyrdom they adopt when after almost two thousand years they find that the non-believers have made some gains in pushing back against the insufferable dominance of believers. As to the display of nativity scenes on civic property the most recent Supreme Court case i could find was this: In 1985, the United States Supreme Court ruled in ACLU vs Scarsdale, New York that nativity scenes on public lands violate separation of church and state statutes unless they comply with "The Reindeer Rule" - a regulation calling for equal opportunity for non-religious symbols such as reindeer.[42] You can read about it here The issue is clearly not the display of just one religion but the display must involve non-religious symbols also. Off hand, i cannot think of a non-believers symbol, but it would be interesting to see what the outcome would be if some Atheist Group petitions to have their logo or sign displayed as well. I was teaching in public school at the time that religious clubs were allowed and i quite clearly recall that the issue was equal club opportunity, and it was resolved by allowing relgious clubs to meet when classes were not in session and so protect the wall of separation. As far as prayer in the schools is concerned you neglect the entire reason for the prohibition. For several hundred years non-believers and Jews were forced to listen to "In the name of the father, son, and holy ghost, amen." And the readings daily from the Bible. The religious folk fought tooth and nail to retain that ritual until one woman with courage went before the U.S. Supreme Court. You make the history and impact of it sound all so innocent when in fact it was a gross imposition upon non-christian children. The last thing I have to remark today because i have to nap and go to Poker with my buds tonight is this.... Christian Fundamentalists (Bibilical Literalists) remain unrelenting in trying to force their views upon the public schools. One only need look to Texas where there is a move afoot to ban the teaching of Darwinism in the schools. One need only look to recent failed attempts to have Creationism certified as a topic of Science in Biology classes. There is an unending struggle between Fundamentalism and Secularism. At the moment the tide seems to be favoring Secularism a little more, but that is faint compensation for all the decades of Fundamentalist ascendency in America and for all the harm it has done in keeping people ignorant and retarding the growth of science and medicine. So now Christians are feeling a little put upon. But that's no excuse for name calling. Let the good struggle continue. I will peek back tomorrow. I hope you have some interesting reply. Goodnight for now, tazzygirl [:D] vincent

Kirata -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/17/2009 12:26:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML There is an unending struggle between Fundamentalism and Secularism. At the moment the tide seems to be favoring Secularism a little more... So now Christians are feeling a little put upon. But that's no excuse for name calling. Speaking of name calling, not all Christians are Fundamentalists. But hey, tar 'em all with the same brush. Everybody knows that this is a secular country comprised of people endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, one of which is to put an end to this free expression of religion crap. K.

Kirata -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/17/2009 12:45:20 PM)
Your courts at work Nativity scenes have provoked controversies and lawsuits. In federal court pleadings in the United States, for example, the New York City, New York, school system defended its ban on nativity scenes by indicating the historicity of the birth of Jesus was not actual fact. The judge in the case upheld the ban, noting that the ban on nativity scenes is not discriminatory while permitting Jewish menorahs and Islamic star and crescent displays because the latter two have secular components while nativity scenes are purely religious. In another instance, a suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States school banned a nativity scene while permitting a menorah display. The school's principal stated, "Judaism is not just a religion, it's a culture." My italics. K.

tazzygirl -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/17/2009 6:46:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl As far as the nativity scenes, ect, those case laws were not against the religion, they were against the notion that only ONE religion could display while denying others the same right. Many places now allow many religions to display. Prayer was the same thing. Since only one prayer was allowed, it was unconstitutional. Forcing children to pray, again, unconstitutional. Which is why silent moments are allowed, so that anyone of any faith may pray or devote their time, even atheists, to their own beliefs. Which is why bible clubs have formed at schools, since other groups with people of similar interests can meet, schools cannot ban religions from doing the same thing. Public schools even must allow the devote time to attend to their religious faith. Muslims have changed that rule in schools. In this, with your belief that religion must be within the home or private sector, i can see your biggotry against religious people. And thats truly sad. People can do bad things in the name of religion. Dont confuse that with religious people. There is a difference. tazzygirl, i know this is an emotionally charged topic for some people but please let's not stoop to name calling. It places a chill on our discussion. i am not bigoted against believers. i am amused perhaps at the recent attitude of martyrdom they adopt when after almost two thousand years they find that the non-believers have made some gains in pushing back against the insufferable dominance of believers. As to the display of nativity scenes on civic property the most recent Supreme Court case i could find was this: In 1985, the United States Supreme Court ruled in ACLU vs Scarsdale, New York that nativity scenes on public lands violate separation of church and state statutes unless they comply with "The Reindeer Rule" - a regulation calling for equal opportunity for non-religious symbols such as reindeer.[42] You can read about it here The issue is clearly not the display of just one religion but the display must involve non-religious symbols also. Off hand, i cannot think of a non-believers symbol, but it would be interesting to see what the outcome would be if some Atheist Group petitions to have their logo or sign displayed as well. Lets see if i cant find you something a bit more current... On the issue of nativity scenes, there are two primary precedents: Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) and Allegheny v. ACLU (1989). Both cases were 5-4 decisions that broke down pretty clearly along ideological lines, with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor being the key vote in each. She joined the more conservative group in the first ruling to give them five votes and joined the more liberal group in the second ruling to give them five votes. Continued - In Lynch, the Court ruled that a nativity display in Rhode Island did not violate the establishment clause. They held that the celebration of Christmas was more cultural than religious and that any endorsement or advancement of religion was “indirect, remote and incidental.” Part of the reason was that the explicitly Christian symbols were mixed with secular symbols like Santa Claus and a Christmas tree and a sign saying “Season’s Greetings.” In Allegheny, the Court ruled on two holiday displays on public property in Pittsburgh, one a Christian nativity scene and the other a large menorah. The Christian display in this case was much more explicit than the one in Lynch, including an angel with a banner that declared “Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ.” Justice Harry Blackman distinguished that type of display from the mixed display in Lynch, saying, “Although the government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, it may not observe it as a Christian holy day by suggesting that people praise God for the birth of Jesus.” After these two cases, the basic rule has been this: the government may put up such displays as long as they mix in enough secular symbols — snowmen, candy canes, reindeer, etc — to water down the message of endorsement. But that leaves open the question of just how many secular symbols must be included and what type of symbols they have to be. And this is further confused by the fact that in Allegheny, the Court considered a menorah to be enough of a secular symbol to pass muster. As a result, lawsuits continue to be filed all around the country over nativity displays on public property. http://michiganmessenger.com/624/church-state-controversy-how-to-find-peace-in-the-war-over-nativity-scenes They consider a menorrah as secular... hmm... interesting no? http://www.forward.com/articles/1790/ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174289,00.html http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1076844 Im sure you can find more.... quote: I was teaching in public school at the time that religious clubs were allowed and i quite clearly recall that the issue was equal club opportunity, and it was resolved by allowing relgious clubs to meet when classes were not in session and so protect the wall of separation. As far as prayer in the schools is concerned you neglect the entire reason for the prohibition. For several hundred years non-believers and Jews were forced to listen to "In the name of the father, son, and holy ghost, amen." And the readings daily from the Bible. The religious folk fought tooth and nail to retain that ritual until one woman with courage went before the U.S. Supreme Court. You make the history and impact of it sound all so innocent when in fact it was a gross imposition upon non-christian children. Cute attempt, but here is the real case. In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Union Free School District No. 9 in Hyde Park, New York had violated the First Amendment by directing the Districts' principals to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." The 1962 Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,") in Engle v. Vitale has since been upheld by both liberal and conservative Supreme Courts in six additional cases: •1963 -- ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP -- banned school-directed recital of the Lord's Prayer and reading of Bible passages as part of "devotional exercises" in public schools. •1980 -- STONE v. GRAHAM -- banned the posting of the the Ten Commandments on public school classroom walls. •1985 -- WALLACE v. JAFFREE -- banned observance of "daily moments of silence" from public schools when students were encouraged to pray during the silent periods. •1990 -- WESTSIDE COMMUNITY BD. OF ED. v. MERGENS -- held that schools must allow student prayer groups to organize and worship if other non-religious clubs are also permitted to meet on school property. •1992 -- LEE v. WEISMAN -- outlawed prayers led by members of the clergy at public school graduation ceremonies. •2000 -- SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE -- banned student-led pre-game prayers at public high school football games. But, you can still pray Through their rulings, the court has also defined some times and conditions under which public school students may pray, or otherwise practice a religion. •"at any time before, during or after the school-day," as long as your prayers do not interfere with other students. •In meetings of organized prayer or worship groups, either informally or as a formal school organization -- IF -- other student clubs are also allowed at the school. •Before eating a meal at school -- as long as the prayer does not disturb other students. •In some states, student-led prayers or invocations are still delivered at graduations due to lower court rulings. However, the Supreme Court's ruling of June 19, 2000 may bring this practice to an end. •Some states provide for a daily "moment of silence" to be observed as long as students are not encouraged to "pray" during the silent period. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa070100a.htm quote: The last thing I have to remark today because i have to nap and go to Poker with my buds tonight is this.... Christian Fundamentalists (Bibilical Literalists) remain unrelenting in trying to force their views upon the public schools. One only need look to Texas where there is a move afoot to ban the teaching of Darwinism in the schools. One need only look to recent failed attempts to have Creationism certified as a topic of Science in Biology classes. Its texas, what do you expect? quote: There is an unending struggle between Fundamentalism and Secularism. At the moment the tide seems to be favoring Secularism a little more, but that is faint compensation for all the decades of Fundamentalist ascendency in America and for all the harm it has done in keeping people ignorant and retarding the growth of science and medicine. So now Christians are feeling a little put upon. But that's no excuse for name calling. Let the good struggle continue. Its name calling only if its not true. To state that religious freedom isnt part of what began in this country is to ignore one of the fundemental foundations. Beyond popular opinion, most religious people are hard working and care little for the argumentative issues surrounding their belief. What they are tired of is being lumped in with religious zealots. There will always be factions within any group that lay on the fringe of that group and society that believe any ends justify the means. quote: I will peek back tomorrow. I hope you have some interesting reply. Goodnight for now, tazzygirl [:D] vincent Interesting reply? I suppose some part of you believe you are right, therefore righteous, in your beliefs. Yet, you are doing just what you accuse religion of doing. Perhaps you need to rethink your views on many subjects.

vincentML -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/17/2009 9:36:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML There is an unending struggle between Fundamentalism and Secularism. At the moment the tide seems to be favoring Secularism a little more... So now Christians are feeling a little put upon. But that's no excuse for name calling. Speaking of name calling, not all Christians are Fundamentalists. But hey, tar 'em all with the same brush. Everybody knows that this is a secular country comprised of people endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, one of which is to put an end to this free expression of religion crap. K. Ahhh K, please don't distort my words. Nowhere did I say all Christians were Fundamentalists. Nor are all Muslims Fundamentalists. Christian Fundamentalists are those who insist on the inerrant literal interpretation of the Bible including the Revelation of John, the End of History, the coming Apocalypse, the Rapture, and the destruction of non-believers, and their literal belief in Bishop Usher's calculation that the Earth was created on October 23 4002 bce. It is this group who continues to try to impose their Orthodoxy upon the curriculum of the public schools by barring the teaching if Darwinism, trying to substitute the faux science of Intelligent Design, and return prayer to the classroom. I am not tarring all Christians with the extremist fundamentalist brush. It is you who have just done that. I say the Fundies are a group dangerous to American civil liberties. If you do not wish to be tarred with their brush then you should take some responsibility and speak out against them, just as moderate Muslims should speak out against the exrtremists fringe of their religion. If you do not wish to be associated with the extreme ideas and actions of Dr Tiller's murderer, then you have a responsibility to speak out against them. If you do not wish to be associated with those who are producing t-shirts and bumper stickers calling for prayer to Psalm 109 for Obama, then you have a responsibility to speak out and not let these fringe groups act in the name of your religion. Nor did I at anytime call for an end to free expression of religious belief. All I ever asked is that it not be imposed upon non-believers. Unfortunately, Christians have such a long history of Dominance that they think it should continue to be the status quo. They throw a hissy fit when their Historical Bullying has been challenged and assume a martyr's posture. Oh woe is us. We poor Christians are being picked upon by non-believer bigots never thinking to wonder whether the non-believers may have some valid complaints. There are two sides to this debate. I would wish you to come down from your self-pitying posture for a moment and consider who has been the historical victim in this contest. It has not been the Christian believer i assure you. Good night. Talk again tomorrow. OMG, it already is tomorrow. ~~smiles~~ too late for me. Goodnight again. Vincent.

Kirata -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/17/2009 10:30:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Nor did I at anytime call for an end to free expression of religious belief. All I ever asked is that it not be imposed upon non-believers. Bullshit. You have stated explicitly that you "strenuously object" to it and do not want to have to "encounter" it. But in truth, there is a way in which you are right. Because it's not really religious experssion that bothers you, or even secularism that motivates you. Instead, you have simply allowed your profound distaste for Fundies to generalize to virtually any expression of Christianity, and are untroubled by the ridiculousness of court decisions that permit other expressions of religion to stand unmolested. It is, overall, an ugly and disingenuous position with which no honest secularist would care to be associated. K.

thishereboi -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/18/2009 4:36:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML There is an unending struggle between Fundamentalism and Secularism. At the moment the tide seems to be favoring Secularism a little more... So now Christians are feeling a little put upon. But that's no excuse for name calling. Speaking of name calling, not all Christians are Fundamentalists. But hey, tar 'em all with the same brush. Everybody knows that this is a secular country comprised of people endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, one of which is to put an end to this free expression of religion crap. K. Ahhh K, please don't distort my words. Nowhere did I say all Christians were Fundamentalists. Nor are all Muslims Fundamentalists. Christian Fundamentalists are those who insist on the inerrant literal interpretation of the Bible including the Revelation of John, the End of History, the coming Apocalypse, the Rapture, and the destruction of non-believers, and their literal belief in Bishop Usher's calculation that the Earth was created on October 23 4002 bce. It is this group who continues to try to impose their Orthodoxy upon the curriculum of the public schools by barring the teaching if Darwinism, trying to substitute the faux science of Intelligent Design, and return prayer to the classroom. I am not tarring all Christians with the extremist fundamentalist brush. It is you who have just done that. I say the Fundies are a group dangerous to American civil liberties. If you do not wish to be tarred with their brush then you should take some responsibility and speak out against them, just as moderate Muslims should speak out against the exrtremists fringe of their religion. If you do not wish to be associated with the extreme ideas and actions of Dr Tiller's murderer, then you have a responsibility to speak out against them. If you do not wish to be associated with those who are producing t-shirts and bumper stickers calling for prayer to Psalm 109 for Obama, then you have a responsibility to speak out and not let these fringe groups act in the name of your religion. Nor did I at anytime call for an end to free expression of religious belief. All I ever asked is that it not be imposed upon non-believers. Unfortunately, Christians have such a long history of Dominance that they think it should continue to be the status quo. They throw a hissy fit when their Historical Bullying has been challenged and assume a martyr's posture. Oh woe is us. We poor Christians are being picked upon by non-believer bigots never thinking to wonder whether the non-believers may have some valid complaints. There are two sides to this debate. I would wish you to come down from your self-pitying posture for a moment and consider who has been the historical victim in this contest. It has not been the Christian believer i assure you. Good night. Talk again tomorrow. OMG, it already is tomorrow. ~~smiles~~ too late for me. Goodnight again. Vincent. Yea, you don't paint them all with the same brush at all.

tazzygirl -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/18/2009 4:44:45 AM)
Talk about name calling. I need to take notes from vincent.

vincentML -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/18/2009 8:01:51 AM)
tazzygirl, you have done an extraordinary amount of research and i do admire your diligence. I do not wish to diminish all the work you did but honestly I see nothing in it that disputes my contention that the Supremes have properly restrained the once suffocating monopoly that Orthodox Christianity exercised on the daily commerce of ideas in this nation both through the public schools and via political discourse in the civic and public square. The Orthodox just can't seem to get over the notion that we are not a Christian nation but a diverse one that includes non-believers who wish not to have your religion pushed into our faces. The placement of previously unhindered nativity scenes remains restricted by the "Reindeer Rule" which may interestingly be expanded in the future, as you say here: quote: After these two cases, the basic rule has been this: the government may put up such displays as long as they mix in enough secular symbols — snowmen, candy canes, reindeer, etc — to water down the message of endorsement. But that leaves open the question of just how many secular symbols must be included and what type of symbols they have to be. And this is further confused by the fact that in Allegheny, the Court considered a menorah to be enough of a secular symbol to pass muster. As a result, lawsuits continue to be filed all around the country over nativity displays on public property. Lets be honest about Chanukah. My Jewish friends will tell you it is a minor celebration of a somewhat significant and dubious historical event, not al all comparable to Yom Kippur and Rosh Shannah in religious significance. Even Passover is not so solemn a holy period, although it is more in keeping of the Law of the Covenant. So, it is no surprise that the menorah is viewed as a cultural symbol. Your cavilier write off of the importance of Texas state curriculum mandates shows that you do not understand that textbook publishers tailor the contents of their history books and biology books toward the decisions made by the textbook committees of such big markets as Texas, California, New York, etc. The previous monopoly enjoyed by the Bible aficionados has been eroded to some club activities. No longer can you mandate a classroom filled with diverse students to stand and bow their heads before reading from the Bible. The outrage is palpable. quote: Its name calling only if its not true. To state that religious freedom isnt part of what began in this country is to ignore one of the fundemental foundations. It is name calling when you ignore any knowledge of the restrictions imposed upon freedom by Puritan Religious Orthodoxy. I suggest you go review the cases of Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson who were brought to trial and driven from the Massachusetts Bay Colony because of their religious heresy and outspokeness. Contrary to the propaganda nonsense you have been fed, religious freedom is not a founding cornerstone of this Nation or of the Colonies that preceded it. The Puritans were very rigorous in enforcing their orthodoxy. The Salem Witch Trials are but another ugly example. Religious freedom has been established in this country by taking away the monopoly of religious orthodoxy. You cannot deal with that or are uneducated in the history, and so you resort to calling me a bigot. I will not stoop to your level in that regard. It is so disappointing in one who shows the ability to do such fine research on topic. quote: What they are tired of is being lumped in with religious zealots. There will always be factions within any group that lay on the fringe of that group and society that believe any ends justify the means. I agree wholeheartedly. If you do not wish to be lumped in with the zealots such as the murderer of Dr. Tillman then you have a responsibility to speak out against the excesses. I am always happy to carry a dialogue with such a diligent and interesting opponent. Too bad you spoil it by the need to make a snarky comment in your next post and continue to accuse me of name calling. The ad homonym attack on my character and sincerity is just a minor slander unbecoming an otherwise intelligent woman who can deal quite well with the issues. Besides that, thank you for the interesting arguments you presented. Vincent

vincentML -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/18/2009 8:05:45 AM)
Such a feeble posting. Not worthy of the time and effort of a response. If you have something of interest or of substance you wish to contribute, please do and i will give it due respect. quote: Yea, you don't paint them all with the same brush at all.

vincentML -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/18/2009 8:17:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Nor did I at anytime call for an end to free expression of religious belief. All I ever asked is that it not be imposed upon non-believers. Bullshit. You have stated explicitly that you "strenuously object" to it and do not want to have to "encounter" it. But in truth, there is a way in which you are right. Because it's not really religious experssion that bothers you, or even secularism that motivates you. Instead, you have simply allowed your profound distaste for Fundies to generalize to virtually any expression of Christianity, and are untroubled by the ridiculousness of court decisions that permit other expressions of religion to stand unmolested. It is, overall, an ugly and disingenuous position with which no honest secularist would care to be associated. K. Take your best shot. Pick one Supreme Court case "that permit other expressions of religion to stand unmolested" and I will be happy to take a look at it. Maybe you have a case to make however crude your language. The Orthodox Fundies have been oppressive and continue to press an agenda detrimental to our civil liberties. Ask Dr Tiller's widow. quote: disingenuous position with which no honest secularist would care to be associated. A broad, sweeping statement without attribution. Not worth a reply. vincent

thishereboi -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/18/2009 10:06:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Such a feeble posting. Not worthy of the time and effort of a response. If you have something of interest or of substance you wish to contribute, please do and i will give it due respect. quote: Yea, you don't paint them all with the same brush at all. Why would I ramble on and on about something that was so easily expressed with one sentence and a couple of highlights?

vincentML -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/18/2009 11:55:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Such a feeble posting. Not worthy of the time and effort of a response. If you have something of interest or of substance you wish to contribute, please do and i will give it due respect. quote: Yea, you don't paint them all with the same brush at all. Why would I ramble on and on about something that was so easily expressed with one sentence and a couple of highlights? [sm=yeahright.gif] Whatever, vincent

tazzygirl -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (11/19/2009 7:04:49 PM)
tazzygirl, you have done an extraordinary amount of research and i do admire your diligence. I do not wish to diminish all the work you did but honestly I see nothing in it that disputes my contention that the Supremes have properly restrained the once suffocating monopoly that Orthodox Christianity exercised on the daily commerce of ideas in this nation both through the public schools and via political discourse in the civic and public square. The Orthodox just can't seem to get over the notion that we are not a Christian nation but a diverse one that includes non-believers who wish not to have your religion pushed into our faces You are overlooking a bigger issue here. Those who wished to teach their children a christian view have gone to homeschooling or religious schools. No muss, no fuss. Especially the kind you are talking about. AND, before you start slamming me for pushing anything into your face... ahem... read up on whom your speaking too. I dont push anything. Nor do i run from it because someone tries to bully me. The contention you held was that religion should be pushed aside and hidden in homes and churches. What happened to being allowed to practice what religion we wish? The previous monopoly enjoyed by the Bible aficionados has been eroded to some club activities. No longer can you mandate a classroom filled with diverse students to stand and bow their heads before reading from the Bible. The outrage is palpable. Nor can you prevent a group of students from praying if that is their wish. It just cannot be lead by faculty or be part of an organized sport. I have no problem with this. Many religious people have no problem with it. Those who do have ulterior motives... many political. Lets be honest about Chanukah. My Jewish friends will tell you it is a minor celebration of a somewhat significant and dubious historical event, not al all comparable to Yom Kippur and Rosh Shannah in religious significance. Even Passover is not so solemn a holy period, although it is more in keeping of the Law of the Covenant. So, it is no surprise that the menorah is viewed as a cultural symbol. Master is jewish and took offence at Chanukah being called minor. While it is not a major holiday, its also not a minor one. The following article may put it all into better perspective for you. http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/18891/our-rituals-show-chanukah-is-not-a-minor-holiday/ Your cavilier write off of the importance of Texas state curriculum mandates shows that you do not understand that textbook publishers tailor the contents of their history books and biology books toward the decisions made by the textbook committees of such big markets as Texas, California, New York, etc. Its not a write off... its Texas. They are strange there anyways.. lol. I homeschooled my son for reasons that had nothing to do with religion. We did use abeka books, intermingled with what we purchased and what we used from the library. He was taught religion... all religions... and Darwins theory as well. But as the expression goes.. out of the mouth of babes... he asked... if the link is missing, how do you make the link work? Smart kid.. just like his mom [:D] You cannot deal with that or are uneducated in the history, and so you resort to calling me a bigot. I called you a bigot because you are trying to enforce the very thing you despise about the christian religion. Its ok, ill give you time to catch up on that theory. If you do not wish to be lumped in with the zealots such as the murderer of Dr. Tillman then you have a responsibility to speak out against the excesses. Ummm.. show me where i came out in support. You wont find one. If i decide not to post on a thread, its usually because i work alot of doubles. My time is sometimes limited to posting. By the time i get to some threads, what i want to say has already been said. Unless you can show where i came out in support of murder, you owe me an appology. Snarky by calling you a bigot when its obvious to many you are on the issue of religion? Lets find some of your most recent snarky comments, shall we? The Orthodox just can't seem to get over the notion that we are not a Christian nation but a diverse one that includes non-believers who wish not to have your religion pushed into our faces. Who is pushing? hmmm? You posted about religion, i responded. I didnt start this thread, or this topic. You were trying to push your beliefs upon the religious by saying when and where they could practice their faith. But that is perfectly acceptable because you dont approve. Its no different than telling a Gay Pride Parade that they can march down a back woods road.. and no where else. As far as prayer in the schools is concerned you neglect the entire reason for the prohibition. For several hundred years non-believers and Jews were forced to listen to "In the name of the father, son, and holy ghost, amen." Show me your source for this being the prayer in public schools. but that is faint compensation for all the decades of Fundamentalist ascendency in America and for all the harm it has done in keeping people ignorant and retarding the growth of science and medicine. Now you are looking to even the score? Yes, that surely speaks volumes. And, in your comment, these same people you accuse of being kept ignorant and retarded in the knowledge of science and medicine are the same people you are so gleefully persecuting. Allow me to reiterate... yet again... Just because someone does something in the name of religion doesnt make it a religious act... nor the person implementing the cat a religious person. Honestly, how hard is that to comprehend?

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625